CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 mai 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 9 May 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 31656/17 Aleksandr BORODULIN against Estonia lodged on 22 April 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a prisoner’s right to protection of his physical integrity from the attacks by third persons and to sufficient redress in the event where such a protection had not been provided. The applicant was a prisoner who was attacked on 25 April 2013 by a fellow prisoner. As a result he suffered permanent injuries to his left leg and hand. The applicant claimed for non-pecuniary damages from the prison authorities. The Tallinn Administrative Court granted his claim, finding that the prison authorities had been responsible for the injuries inflicted on the applicant and awarded him 1,500 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damages. The decision was upheld by the Tallinn Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court refused to examine the appeal on points of law. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the consequences of the physical attack on the applicant by a fellow prisoner on 25   April 2013 reach the threshold required under Article   3 of the Convention?   2.     Did the prison authorities take all steps which could have been reasonably expected of them to protect the applicant’s physical integrity from risks which the authorities had or ought to have had knowledge of (see M.C. v. Poland , no. 23692/09, 3 March 2015; Premininy v. Russia , no.   44973/04, 10 February 2011; Rodić and Others v. Bosnia and   Herzegovina , no. 22893/05, 27 May 2008)?   3.     Can the applicant still claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention, within the meaning of Article   34 considering the amount of non-pecuniary damages that was awarded to him by the domestic courts (see M.C. v. Poland , no. 23692/09, 3 March 2015)?